-
I dont remember there names but they were allot of fun.... -
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
Its not lost revenue and the money the networks paid to the NBA can either be paid back to them or they'll just take is as an early loan type deal
Either way the networks wont ever get involved in this one
“I think the biggest misperception is that it’s only about two percentage points,” committee member Roger Mason said. “Because it’s about much more than 50 or 52 or whatever. There’s still a system that hasn’t been addressed.”
And a whole lot of other stuff, too
We keep hearing so much stuff, somebody is spinning like a mugComment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
TNT needs to post a "Gone Fishin" picture with all these Stand United guys.Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
I like how people can make the same points but the person you don't agree with is the one trolling. But might is right though.
Especially when it's clear as day since this thread opened that the majority here are anti-player and choose to express it and almost every post.You looking at the Chair MAN!
Number may not tell the whole story ,but they never lie either.Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
How ridiculous does this look now.
e/ happy birthday man.Last edited by Vni; 11-04-2011, 08:47 AM.Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
I woke up this morning and got a Happy Birthday email from NBA.com, I laughed.Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
My 2 Cents:
- The decertification talk is a complete bluff. One thing I've learned from this lockout is thant any breaking news that stems from Yahoo (Wojo) is a leak from one of the agents. Its a last gasp approach by the agents to retain some leverage and some control. The bottom line is they dont have the votes for decertification and if players have to choose between blowing up the season or a 50/50 BRI.....they are choosing the 50/50.
-The one positive is that the owners may not consider this a bluff and may be more willing to come up to 51. They arent going to go up to 52 but Stern hinted that 51 was a possibility if Hunter would have stayed at the table.
- This isnt going to be a clean ratification from either side. I could see this easily being a 16/14 approval by the owners and similar split by the players.Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
last night was watching ESPN and it showed a meeting of some sort, it could've been the NBAPA warroom or whatever but I literally cringed seeing Derek Fisher and Hunter at the forefront of that table with other nba players around them
.....they looked completely out of place
and i imagine if the negotiation room is anything like that
these players are *COMPLETELY* out of their element and no wonder Stackhouse (and you know he ain't the only one) flat-out said "I don't want to see Derek Fisher negotiating anything for me"
sad but true
the players bungled this from the get-go, they should've done what the NFLPA did and gotten some former washington-man or former lawyer, former judge (lol) but you see what I'm getting at here
PLAYERS SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO DO THESE NEGOTIATIONS..
I am now completely certain we are closer to have a cancelled season than we are having an agreement
so very sad but so very true
Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
A good read on decertification via ESPN.com:
As detailed by ESPN's Marc Stein and Chris Broussard, at least 50 dissatisfied NBA players had a conference call Thursday to lay the groundwork for potentially decertifying the players union. According to the New York Times, this group of players intends to push for the dissolution of their union if this weekend's talks fail to make satisfactory progress or result in an unacceptable deal.
By decertifying, the players would be throwing a counterpunch after being on the ropes for many months. They already have conceded 4.5 percent of league revenues -- moving from 57 percent in the last agreement to a proposed 52.5 percent -- along with accepting many system changes that favor the owners. Meanwhile, the owners' hard-line stance has hardly swayed in the two-plus years the sides have negotiated.
The mere threat of decertification would provide the players with much-needed leverage in the labor dispute. Anticipating such a move, the league filed a federal lawsuit, calling it an "impermissible pressure tactic," and saying it has had a "direct, immediate and harmful" effect on the negotiations. The suit seeks a declaration from the court that the lockout does not violate antitrust laws in the event the union decertifies.
A hearing took place this week in Manhattan, N.Y., in which the union asked the judge to dismiss the suit. The judge has asked for additional briefs from both parties before rendering a decision.
Decertification owes its power to the uneasy truce between labor laws and antitrust laws. The antitrust laws prevent employers from banding together to restrain competition. For example, if all the banks in a city agreed that they would not pay their tellers more than $30,000 per year, it would almost certainly be illegal case of "price fixing." Likewise, if the banks laid off all their tellers and refused to rehire them unless they agreed to take a pay cut to $30,000, it would almost certainly be an illegal "group boycott." These types of agreements -- which restrain competition -- are addressed by the antitrust laws.
However, collective bargaining encourages the very type of behavior that the antitrust laws make illegal. To resolve this inherent conflict, there is something called the "non-statutory labor exemption," which shields collective bargaining agreements from attack under antitrust law. This protection extends even after the agreement expires -- so long as a bargaining relationship continues to exist.
Here's the key to the whole process: This bargaining relationship continues to exist as long as the union is in place. If the players dissolve the union, the bargaining relationship dissolves with it. Without the bargaining relationship, the league is no longer shielded from antitrust laws.
Much of the economic structure of the NBA -- such as the salary cap, maximum salaries, rookie-scale salaries and the luxury tax -- could be challenged under the antitrust laws as a form of price fixing if there was no union. The lockout itself could be challenged as a group boycott.
In many normal businesses, employers fight unionization and would be thrilled if the employees decided to get rid of their union. But in the sports world, employers benefit from the existence of the union -- so the employees can use the dissolution of the union as a threat.
So far the NBA players have kept the dispute within the realm of labor law by continuing to negotiate as a union. If the players dissolve the union -- either by decertifying or through a related process called a disclaimer of interest -- they surrender their collective bargaining rights, lift the shield of protection provided by the non-statutory labor exemption, and shift the venue from labor law to antitrust law.
After decertifying, the players could then bring an antitrust suit against the league, challenge any rules that constitute a restraint of trade, and ask the court to end the lockout. They could also seek treble (triple the amount) damages -- up to $6 billion per year. The odds of winning are not 100 percent certain (they never are), but the risk to the owners would be enormous. Such a case could take years to resolve.
Once the union decertifies, the collective bargaining process would be over -- there literally would be no union with which the owners could negotiate. Billy Hunter, Derek Fisher and the other players on the executive committee would no longer be in charge -- as a practical matter, control would pass to attorneys. The players also could not reassemble the union for one year without the league's consent. However, such consent obviously would be granted if the two sides eventually cut a deal.
Once the union decertifies, the owners could pursue one of three strategies:
• They can end the lockout, open the doors to the players and start doing business without a salary cap or any of the other mechanisms that existed in the CBA. They would be abandoning the very protections for which they are locking out the players, and which they have enjoyed for decades.
• They can end the lockout, open the doors to the players and unilaterally impose a new set of work rules without collective bargaining. This strategy would surely result in an antitrust challenge by the players. It would also implement an economic system the owners don't want, as the new rules would be designed to withstand such a challenge.
• They can continue the lockout, hoping to wear down the players. This strategy would also be met with an antitrust suit, and the owners would be hoping that the players wear down before the hammer falls. This is the most likely of the three scenarios.
The league's federal lawsuit would also become irrelevant if the union decertifies, because the league sued the union and its executive committee. Those bodies would no longer exist.
In order to decertify the union, at last 30 percent of the players must sign a petition stating that they no longer wish to be represented by the players' association. This petition is filed with the National Labor Relations Board, the same organization that is overseeing both sides' unfair labor practice charges. The NLRB then verifies the petition and schedules an election. If a majority of players then vote for decertification, the union is dissolved.
This process would take until at least after the new year before an election is scheduled. Union attorney Lawrence Katz also believes the NLRB would block any decertification petition until it rules on the earlier charges, which would cause further delays. "In my opinion, they could not process the petition for a vote because of the pending petition," he said.
So why would the players explore decertification now? Such a move would be like throwing a grenade into the negotiating room. "We aren't talking about decertification as a negotiating tactic," said David Holmes, a corporate attorney based in Houston. "We're talking about war."
If 50 players are involved, then this is clearly more than just hot air from a few hard-line players. It puts pressure on both sides. Faced with an increasing likelihood of a player revolt, the league may be more inclined to compromise in this weekend's scheduled negotiating sessions. Even if this is all just posturing from a group of dissatisfied players, it is not a development NBA commissioner David Stern and the owners want to see.
It also puts pressure on Hunter, Fisher and the rest of the union negotiating committee. Amid rumors that Fisher was trying to find a way to sell the players on a 50-50 split of revenues, this threat sends a strong message: You need to hold the line, because we have other options.
While this move is surprising, it is not an unprecedented step for NBA players, who filed antitrust lawsuits in 1970 and 1987, and nearly decertified in 1995. For better or worse, decertification would be a game-changer.Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
god bless twitter, twitter is truth and that's why it's so entertaining at times, these nba players are now showing the true rifts in their ranks
the most recent being Glen Davis, aka Big Baby of the Celtics, "take the 51% man and let's play!"
this amidst reports that if a deal isn't done in a week/week and a half, the owners are taking everything off the table and just drawing the line at 46/47% and cancelling the season outright
the owners believe that a lost season will be recouped in the next 10 years but will not budge from 46/47%, it'll be a take it or leave it deal
the players? I still go back to November 15..
watch total anarchy once that direct deposit isn't there anymore
truth
Outside the Lines special report
most worrysome is the fact that there is traction and a growing movement from the OWNERS of just cancelling the season outright
paraphrasing - "and if that happens, they go for the kill and drop it to 43% of BRI because it won't affect the owners whereas the players cannot even fathom missing out on 1-2 seasons' worth of paychecks.. at that point, they'll have to take whatever the deal is because there's no other choice" - Chris BroussardLast edited by CharliePrince; 11-04-2011, 10:36 AM.Comment
-
Re: NBA Lockout and Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion
This can't be the players have "ZERO" leverage. None!
I'm really disappointed that the owners moved off the most important aspect of these negotiations IMO. This luxury tax system will do more to hurt parity then help. It's going to cause a much bigger gap between the large rev and med/small rev teams. We could easily see teams spending 3 or 4 times as much as some teams. This league needs a system with a definitive cap on salaries.You looking at the Chair MAN!
Number may not tell the whole story ,but they never lie either.Comment
-
Comment
Comment